TC 
425 

S2A33 


10 

-O 

O 


GIFT   OF 


GTPT 
MAR  so 


LOCATION  OF  THE  SUTTER  BY-PASS. 

The  Sutter  by-pass,  part  of  the  by-pass  system  of  the  Sacramento 
Flood   Control   Project,   was  fixed  in  the  so-called   "Eastern" 
location  by  order  of  the  State  Reclamation  Board  made  March  31, 
[1913,  on  the  advice  of  the  State  Engineering  Department,  and  with 
approval  of  the  California  Debris  Commission  acting  for  the  Federal 
[Government.     Certain  interests  in  Sutter  County  desired  the  location 
changed  back  to  that  suggested  in  the  original  tentative  plans  of  the 
[California  Debris  Commission — the  so-called  "Central"  location— and 
[urged  Hon.  William  Kent,  congressman  from  the  First  District,  which 
includes  Sutter  County,  to  secure  the  change  if  possible.     Mr.  Kent 
commissioned  J.  H.  Dockweiler,  consulting  engineer  of  San  Francisco, 
to  make  an  exhaustive  examination  and  report  of  the  relative  merits 
of  the  two  locations.     The  report  was  made  in  May,  1916,  and  accom- 
panied by  a  number  of  maps  and  documents.     The  introduction  to  the 
report,  which  contains  briefly  the  general  conclusions,  is  as  follows: 


SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.,  May  13,  1916. 
\H<»i.  WILLIAM  KENT, 

Keiitfield,  California. 
[DEAR  SIR: 

In  compliance  with  your  request  I  have  investigated  the  relative 
merits  of  the  Central  and  Eastern  locations  of  the  Sutter  Basin  by-pass 
[channel. 

I  have  been  over  the  Sutter  Basin  country  recently,  with  engineers 
representing  both  sides  in  the  controversy. 

On  April  19th  and  20th  I  held  a  hearing  in  Sacramento,  at  which 
I  had  the  engineers  representing  both  sides  agree  to  as  many  points 
as  practicable,  thus  limiting  materially  the  range  of  argument  for 
your  consideration. 

From  a  thorough  study  of  the  whole  situation  with  regard  to  safety, 
cost  and  expediency,  I  find  the  evidence  strongly  in  favor  of  completing 
the  by-pass  on  the  Eastern  location. 


The  general  plan  of  flood  control  of  the  Sacramento  River  contem- 
plates a  by-pass  through  the  Sutter  Basin. 

This  by-pass  will  consist  of  two  strong  parallel  levees,  between  Marys- 
vine  Buttes  and  the  Fremont  Weir  (near  Knights  Landing),  capable 
of  passing  a  flood  50  per  cent  greater  than  that  of  1907. 


The  original  Debris  Commission  plan  of  flood  control  followed  the 
trough  of  the  Sutter  Basin  in  what  is  known  as  the  " Central"  location. 

The  State  Reclamation  Board,  in  working  out  the  details  of  the 
scheme,  decided  that  by  shifting  the  by-pass  to  higher  ground  to  the 
east  a  safer  and  more  economical  location  could  be  obtained. 

The  board  adopted  this  location — known  as  the  "Eastern"  location— 
and  it  was  approved  by  the  Debris  Commission  of  United  States  army 
engineers. 

It  should  be  noted  here  that  local  variations  from  the  original  Debris 
Commission  plan  were  made  en  all  the  by-passes  studied;  this  was  to 
be  expected,  as  the  original  plan  was  made  without  detailed  surveys,  etc. 

The  Reclamation  Board  Act,  in  effect  August  8,  1915,  states: 

"SECTION  1.  The  report  of  the  California  Debris  Commission 
transmitted  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  on  the  twenty-seventh  day 
of  June,  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  eleven,  with  such  modifi- 
cations and  amendments,  and  such  additional  plans  as  have  been 
or  may  hereafter  be  adopted  by  the  Reclamation  Board,  is  hereby 
approved  as  a  plan  for  controlling  the  flood  waters  of  the  Sacra- 
mento River. ' '  ( Appendix  "  A, "  page  3. ) 


Opposition  to  the  Eastern  location  developed  among  the  residents  of 
Sutter  County,  culminating  in  a  suit  to  enjoin  the  completion  of  the 
reclamation  of  District  No.  1500,  on  the  ground  that  lands  not  here- 
tofore subject  to  overflow  from  the  waters  of  the  Sutter  Basin,  would  be 
damaged  by  the  backing  up  of  these  waters  caused  by  the  cross  levees 
at  the  northern  end  of  District  No.  1500. 

This  same  objection  would  have  applied  if  District  No.  1500  had  been 
building  along  the  lines  of  the  Central  location. 

At  the  hearing  you  held  in  Marysville  last  November,  and  in  sundry 
correspondence  in  connection  therewith,  the  arguments  for  and  against 
the  two  locations  were  pretty  thoroughly  presented. 

In  the  following  pages  I  have  considered  all  the  points  presented,  but 
the  pertinent  ones  may  be  briefly  summarized  as  follows : 

FOR  CENTRAL  LOCATION.         FOR  EASTERN  LOCATION. 

A. 

The  Central  location  follows  the  trough  The  Eastern  location  was  made  partic- 
of  the  Basin  at  about  the  center  of  the  ularly  to  avoid  this  drop  and  rise  with  the 
usual  course  of  the  waters;  but  on  idea  of  keeping  the  velocity  of  the  eunviii 
account  of  the  presence  of  a  depression  uniform,  and  at  the  same  time  avoid  the 
below  the  level  of  the  Fremont  Weir,  this  high  levees  with  their  greater  chance  of 
requires  higher  levees  for  about  ten  miles  saturation. 

than  required  by  the  Eastern  location.  In  addition  it  required  only  one-third 
The  Central  location,  in  other  words,  the  mileage  of  levees  through  the  most 
makes  a  drop  and  rise.  critical  part  of  the  by-pass. 


This  point  favors  the  Eastern  location,  but  does  not  necessarily  pre- 
clude the  construction  of  the  Central  location ;  as  the  higher  and  longer 
levees  can  be  made  secure  by  adequate  design  and  construction. 

B. 

In  case  of  breaks  in  the  lovers  of  the  This  is  admitted  but  is  considered  offset 
Central  loom  ion.  there  would  be  less  land  by  the  fact  that  there  is  less  likelihood  of 
flooded  of  lands  not  heretofore  subject  to  the  breaks  occurring  on  the  Eastern  loca- 
overllow  from  Sutler  I'.asiu  waters.  tion,  on  account  of  the  lower  and  shorter 

This  difference  amounts  to  18,000  acres    levees. 
of  highly  cultivated  land  for  the  original 
location    and    to    about    half   that   in    case 
the  change   were  made  so  as  to  utilize  as 
lurch  present   construction  as  practicable. 

This  point  favors  the  Central  location,  but  is  only  relative — any  flood 
place,  within  reasonable  limits,  may  be  obtained  by  suitable  widening 
of  the  by-pass  on  either  location ;  and  if  on  the  Eastern  location  they 
should  build  an  additional  levee  to  separate  the  Feather  River  floods 
from  the  Sacramento,  as  has  to  be  done  for  the  Central  location,  there 
would  be  practically  no  difference  between  the  flood  areas  by  either 
location. 

C. 

The  advocates  of  the  Central  location  District  No.  loOO  considers  it  was  justi- 
claim  that  District  No.  1500  should  not  fied  in  going  ahead  because  the  Reclama- 
have  built  on  the  Eastern  location  as  they  tion  Board,  with  full  power  to  do  so,  has 
warned  them  that  suit  would  be  brought  adopted  the  Eastern  location,  and  would 
to  enjoin  the  completion  of  the  reclama-  not  let  them  proceed  along  the  lines  of  the 
tion  of  the  district.  Central  location,  even  if  they  wished  to. 

They  claim  that  if  the  change  were  They  have  built  19  miles  of  by-pass 
made  back  to  the  Central  location,  prac-  levees  and  if  the  change  were  made  back 
tically  all  existing  work  could  be  utilized,  to  the  Central  location  at  this  time,  it 

would  practically  mean  the  construction 
of  BOTH  BY-PASSES  as  far  as  District 
Xo.  I.IOO  is  concerned. 

This  point,  which  is  an  important  financial  item,  strongly  favors  the 
Eastern  location,  and  in  my  opinion  practically  decides  the  matter  in 
favor  of  the  Eastern  location. 

All  the  other  arguments,  as  well  as  the  above,  are  taken  up  in  detail 
in  the  report,  with  sufficient  notes  to  show  their  bearing  on  the  general 
question  of  whether  or  not  it  is  expedient  at  this  time  to  change  back 
to  the  Central  location  of  the  by-pass. 

****** 
Respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed)  J.  II .  DOCKWKIL:;K, 

Consulting  Engineer. 


YC 107659 


395840 


1 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA    LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


ore  si 

JAM22VO 

REC'D  LD  JUh 


22  70  -8  AM 


